I agree. And I think he is WRONG!
Our criminal justice system requires that a person be convicted of a crime by a jury…twelve of our peers…before they are punished. In this instance, I think we should approach the UN as if it were the jury.
Oh, and BTW…I CANNOT believe that our congress gave him carte blanche to START a war without a vote!
What the SAM HILL?
I have noted which of my legislators supported THAT, and I will be taking it under SERIOUS consideration when they are up for re-election. With a probably foregone conculsion.
The guys who had planes flown into our buildings.
If they were behind this, get them.
It's called politics. Nobody wants to opposed what may be a popular war. Right or wrongis irrelevant. All there is is getting re-elected.Juries are supposed to be impartial. The UN is not and never can be, for ANY nation. Too many alliances/dependencies. Does an Arab country vote against Iraq and risk upsetting their peoples? Does a Japan risk peeving OPEC?
I don’t know if this will help or hinder the discussion; however, as someone who has witnessed just a small part of America’s military might, I can assure you that the information contained in this Cite is very true, if slightly out of date. America is fully capable of obliterating any army except the Chinese in a land battle, and the Chinese army was built to hold off the Russians and isn’t capable of the type of maneuvering that the US can muster.
In the hundreds of years since the inception of Naval battle, only the threat of Nuclear war negates the effect of having a Navy where the smallest carrier battle group is the equivalent of any three other navies in the world, and having a military budget that is greater than the next nine (9) largest budgets combined. Yes, they could sneak a nuke in, they could probably sneak several in, but the reason the rest of the world hates us, and don’t get me wrong, I have travelled extensively, even our “friends” aren’t crazy about us, is that the US could theoretically stand toe to toe with the rest of the WORLD combined, and hold its own. We answer to no one, we are beholden to no one, and we make our own rules. What’s not to like?
Ringo: Here’s a current breakdown for you that looks pretty complete:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/korea-orbat-021101.htm
- Tamerlane
Americans are a fickle bunch.
Depending on how the war goes, the polls could shift almost anywhere. If there is a quick, decisive, massive assault resulting in spectacular images of enemy destruction that can be shown on CNN, then Americans will ooh and aah and say how proud they are. But if it turns into a Jimmy Carter helicopter rescue on a massive scale with plenty of images of American corpses, then Bush is finished.
I doubt it. But I bet Kim chong-il and Saddam are about half the line up of the Final Filly Field, don’t ya think?
Actually, it was Don Rumsfeld that did that, and if we read the US Constitution, why there it is right there: no one else is mentioned as CINC.
Personally, I kinda LIKE it when the US Constitution is the basis for government action.
I agree.
But what this has to do with Iraq?
I mean, let’s assume that Saddam and Osama are as buddy-buddy as the governments of the US and France. (We are technically allies, after all, even if they seem to exist primarily in order to annoy the hell out of America. :)) If France dropped bombs somewhere, I sure wouldn’t want to be held responsible. And I’m sure they feel the same about anything the US does.
There have been claims that Saddam was involved - planning, funding, etc. I did say “if”. We find this out. IF he was involved, we get him. I didn’t just say get him.
Otherwise, we’ll bomb France instead.
Iraq should be hit, and hit hard. Bring them to their knees. It’s only a matter of time before saddam does something stupid to inflict damage to the U.S. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
As far as three fronts, it can be done depending on how large the fronts are, and how much time it will take for the U.S. to pummel the bastards. If we are going to hit N.K. it should be done swiftly and violently. I would hate to spend any more time than is absolutely necessary in N.K.
Christ. How has this thing languished in MPSIMS for so long? One of these days I’ll actually get around to reading everything that’s posted. But that will probably have to wait until at least until my retirement.
Off it goes to Great Debates . . .
Whether war will be the outcome or not, Saddam has already demonstrated that the only way to negotiate with him is a.) from a position of strength and b.) to consider only what he does, not what he says.
If the Administration ties our actions to UN consensus, the position of strength is irretrievably lost, as Saddam already knows he can play the UN along forever.
Sorry, Scotti, while I understand your position quite well, it does not fully account for the realities that ultimately decide how ideals might be attained. What can be done about Saddam? Either a.) pursue him, or b.) leave him to pursue (all) of the rest of us. My perception, apparently also that of the Administration, is that obligating ourselves to await UN consensus is effectively choosing b.).
I don’t believe that GWB is committed to war, but I do think he believes that he has a very narrow shelf of strength from which to bargain, and he must play bigger chips than the UN to get Saddam’s attention. His opponent knows no public opinion, so will only respond with any meaning to that which demands his response. Saddam would like to drag it out to see if the “soft” Americans wouldn’t just rather forget.
And we could, you know. We could just blow off all this current uneasiness for, well, several years before he can actually land one on the chin. Wouldn’t that be easier?
You are kidding yourself, right?
Actually, he’s not too far off. The US has such a qualitative edge that it needs fear no possible combination of power against it. I do not claim that we could simultaneously invade each and every geographic area in the world, but that’s not what we’re talking about here.
No power on Earth can project power like the US. So, the armed forces of 95% of the world may be discounted in a calculation of where we can or cannot go with military force.
Ever play Risktm? Imagine the US has twenty armies, and all other powers combined have sixty. Now imagine a rule that the US can move from any zone to any other zone without restriction, but all others may only move into adjacent areas, as long as no bodies of water were crossed.
That’s an approximation of the strategic reality. We may choose where and when to strike our enemies, but we can effectively prevent them from reaching us. Oh, they can hit places where we’re tender, and can cause any amount of havoc to our interests in the world. But unfriendly general staffs everywhere else in the world have to plan on US military action right up into their grille, if it comes to that. But US planners have the luxury of NOT having to worry about defending Bayonne, New Jersey from conventional armed attack.
So, sleep well, and you’re welcome very much, I’m sure. Just part of the job. 
Just unconventional terrorist tactics.
The US military has had the advantage in recent years of being able to pick and choose who, how and when it fights wars. The US military could not stand toe to toe against the rest of the world combined, not even remotely. Sure, the US could pound any one nation into submission, but only on its own terms. No single nation could successfully invade the US, but the reverse is also true for many countries. One carrier battle group has more firepower than any comparable force, but it doesn’t have infinite ammunition or fuel, and it’s still vulnerable to many forms of attack (however low the chance of success).
Yes, Thank you Bluesman I in no way intended to imply that the US could go conquer the world. Just that we could rebuff any conceivable combination of forces arrayed against us so long as the conflict does not become nuclear. That last qualifier is why the rest of the world, friends and enemies alike, do NOT want the US to develop it’s missile defense system.